Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were English social contract theorists who produced books approximately 100 years before the American Revolution describing why men enter political society and what shape the resulting state ought to take. Because of their insistence that the state ought to be justified (or else dissolved) according to whether it satisfied the principles for which it had originally been established, they were highly influential among the founding fathers in America, who made appeal to the writings of Hobbes and Locke to argue that the English sovereign had crossed the lines limiting its authority in the colonies, thereby justifying their overthrowing of that sovereign in the colonies. They also weighed seriously the writing of the two theorists as they developed the American constitution, so that they could be sure to develop for themselves a government that would be justified according to principles that would be good for the body politic that would live under the constitution.
Both Hobbes and Locke imagined a situation in which man lived in a state of nature before he entered the body politic. Hobbes thought that men were basically ill-tempered and untrustworthy and therefore agreed to give over their rights to a sovereign that would rule them absolutely for their own benefit. He favored a large and powerful government able to enforce its will on subjects, in order to control their natural unruliness. Locke, on the other hand thought men in the state of nature were good, but that due to their need to be secure in their property and to protect themselves from outside forces, they banded together to form a state to benefit themselves individually. He favored a limited government able to protect its citizens which would act otherwise almost entirely on their behalf.
The framers of the constitution argued over these two positions, in an attempt to decide whether men needed more or less rule and how they ought to structure the government in order to achieve the right balance. In the end, they stuck a sort of compromise, making a limited government but building in potentialities for the government to grow if necessary in or to meet the challenges of governing a new nation.
Hobbes vs. Locke Thomas Hobbes and John Locke each provide intriguing opinions concerning the state of nature, but their thinking differs when considering the form of governing that each promotes as being the most effective. The individuals in Locke's example of a government appear to have greater security than those in Hobbes', as the latter considers that there would be nothing wrong with people renouncing some of their rights in order
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke each formulated notions regarding human liberty in nearly the same social, political, and provincial circumstances. Although their most famous works were separated approximately forty years from one another, they were both wealthy members of seventeenth century English society during a period of particular social and religious turmoil. Similarly, both Hobbes and Locke sought to use reasoning to determine the most appropriate form of political and
Question 2: The goals of the philosophies were meant to exercise a set of ideals. Which common tenets of enlightened thinking do writers Mary Wollstonecraft and Denis Diderot advance in "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" and the selection from "Encyclopedie." Contemporary connections: Discuss how you see the tenets you identified in these works as having informed/influenced our contemporary experience. Although Mary Wollstonecraft speaks about the rights of women specifically,
John Locke, who was a near descendant of Hobbes, differed most strongly in his political opinions and indicated that the 'state of nature' of which Hobbes talked would be preferable to having a sovereign government or absolute ruler and therefore be subjected to the whims and ideas of that person. Locke was not anti-political, but he did not share Hobbes' belief that having one ruler and therefore establishing one set
This is significant for those that study politics today and actually seek to understand much of the reasoning behind it and the theories that encompass it. Social contract is a theory that indicates that individuals have an agreement between themselves in order to form society. It is assumed that political and moral obligations of various people are based on this theory. Both Hobbes and Locke believed in the social contract
Hobbes, Locke, And Democracy There once was a time when kings ruled and their people were subject to the absolute authority of that king. The king literally was the law, whatever he said became law. All of his subject had an obligation to be loyal to their king simply because God had appointed him king. Kings claimed their authority from God, and therefore possessed the ultimate authority. However, beginning in the